Islamic Modernism 253Rahman disagreed with those who considered secularism to be the ultimate
phase of modernity. He explained that secularism in Muslim societies appears
imminent because of the rigidity of the conservative ulama. He also held the
Islamic modernists responsible for an ‘apologetic-controversial literature’ that
romanticised Islamic civilisation and ‘created a barrier against further modernist
development’ (Rahman 1969: 252).
Secularism is not essentially a uniting force in Muslim societies:
Unless secularism can be made into an effective force for positive progress,
the only way for these [Muslim] countries seems to be to accept religion as the
basis of the state and to fi nd within their religions not only adequate safeguards
but formulas of genuine equality for minorities with the majority communities.
Otherwise sooner or later, but probably in the predictable future these coun-
tries would break up into racial and linguistic units on the pattern of Europe.
(Rahman 1969: 259)Muhammad Abid al-Jabiri (b. 1936) in Morocco also found the concept of
secularism ambiguous. He clarifi ed that the current ambiguity is created by
its debatable defi nitions in the West, its introduction into the Arab world by
Christian Arabs and its translation as la-diniyya. Further, Muslim and Christian
experiences differ with reference to religious and political authority. In Islam,
the political practice was never rationalised and religion always transcended
politics. There is a need to stress that religion must be separated from politics.
Al-Jabiri may not be counted among the Islamic modernists, yet he did
address the issue of new theology in his Takwin al-aql al-arabi (The Structure
of Arab Reason), published in 1984. Developing a theology of democracy, he
analysed the Islamic modernist discourse that justifi ed democracy in Islam with
reference to shura (consultation) and the modernist discourse that denied the
need for Islamic legitimacy. Al-Jabiri disagreed with both and suggested a two-
step solution. First, he proposed that democracy is not exclusive to the West, nor
is it rooted in the Western tradition. It is a modern institution. Secondly, shura
is neither a political nor a thoroughly democratic principle. Also, democracy
did not emerge in the Islamic environment. Thus, shura is an ethical principle to
keep a check on tyranny. It derives its legitimacy from its association with ijma,
which is essentially an institution of consultation.
Al-Jabiri explained that the Quran does not address the question of political
authority specifi cally, and that Islamic political theories are only legitimising the
historical experiences of the community. The only thing we learn from history
is that the community considered the institution of the state and the caliphate as
necessities. Islamic political thought is insuffi cient today, because it takes historical
experiences as facts of law and precedents, and lays emphasis on persons rather
than on institutions. It makes separation between ethical ideals and actual political
conditions lawful. The present ambiguity in Islamic political thought lies in the